Pythagorus Had a Fake Degree

[The idea]

He actually failed math. Therefore we can safely ignore his message. From now on, the length of the hypotenuse is whatever your local government authority declares it to be.

[scribble]

Originally posted by The idea
He actually failed math. Therefore we can safely ignore his message. From now on, the length of the hypotenuse is whatever your local government authority declares it to be.

Is that supposed to be funny? In light of the blindingly stupid posts I have seen in the last several days, I don't get it as a joke.

We use the pythagoeran formula because it is proven. We can explain to you exactly why and how it works, in words so tiny that they CANNOT be misunderstood - providing you speak our language of Math.

He didn't make a claim. He didn't say the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the square root of the sum of the sqaures of the other sides.

He *PROVED* it.

Now... if you want to go make up your own math theories like BTT or pupcos, that's one thing. We'll listen, and if they're stupid, we'll tell you they're stupid.

If you can PROVE them, then we'll all listen and agree.

We don't care if you have a degree.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

He didn't make a claim. He didn't say the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the square root of the sum of the sqaures of the other sides.

He *PROVED* it.Yes, but would that be working in binary or decimal? Or, is it possible that someone might get the wrong idea in another language? How right would it be then?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but would that be working in binary or decimal? Or, is it possible that someone might get the wrong idea in another language? How right would it be then?

You don't understand the words you are saying, Parrot.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by scribble


Is that supposed to be funny? In light of the blindingly stupid posts I have seen in the last several days, I don't get it as a joke.


The idea (http://www.specialolympics.org) never jokes. (http://www.nimhindia.org/)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

You don't understand the words you are saying, Parrot. I think you got the wrong idea. Are you sure you don't mean parody? ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I think you got the wrong idea. Are you sure you don't mean parody? ;)

See? You think you are a sophist. You're not. Parrot.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

See? You think you are a sophist. You're not. Parrot. Or maybe you're just afraid or, perhaps jealous, that somebody might pull the same tactics on you? Do you know what sniping is? So, you better watch out lest you get caught in your own ambush. ;)

Backbiter ...

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but would that be working in binary or decimal? Or, is it possible that someone might get the wrong idea in another language? How right would it be then?

Very well.

I have a triangle measured in binary, with a base of 11 and a height of 100. The squares of which(1001 and 10000, respectively) add up to 11001, of which the square root is 101.

Of course, all I'm really doing is writing the numbers differently so I've proven nothing...

Huh.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

Very well.

I have a triangle measured in binary, with a base of 11 and a height of 100. The squares of which(1001 and 10000, respectively) add up to 11001, of which the square root is 101.

Of course, all I'm really doing is writing the numbers differently so I've proven nothing...

Huh. Sorry, I can see that it has nothing to do with decimals, so how can you say it's right then? It is certainly not absolute. In fact it doesn't work at all ... not with decimals anyway. ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Sorry, I can see that it has nothing to do with decimals, so how can you say it's right then? It is certainly not absolute. In fact it doesn't work at all ... not with decimals anyway. ;)

You have no idea what the words you are putting together mean.

None at all.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Sorry, I can see that it has nothing to do with decimals, so how can you say it's right then? It is certainly not absolute. In fact it doesn't work at all ... not with decimals anyway. ;)

In decimal that would be a 3,4,5 triangle I mentioned.

Scribble: No, he really doesn't does he.:D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

In decimal that would be a 3,4,5 triangle I mentioned.

Scribble: No, he really doesn't does he.:D Now, where exactly did you bring up decimals? You see, this makes you wrong ... according to Scribble that is. ;) So, I think you need to decide which system you want to work with, and stop trying to fool us with all this absolute nonsense. Why? Because the numbers 3, 4 and 5 have absolutely nothing to do with the binary system.

By the way, I'm just pulling your leg here, if you can get it to work with either system that's fine by me. ;)

[scribble]

By the way, I'm just pulling your leg here, if you can get it to work with either system that's fine by me. ;) [/B]

One man's "pulling your leg" is another man's "incoherent gibberish," I guess...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

One man's "pulling your leg" is another man's "incoherent gibberish," I guess... Coherent enough to evoke a reply perhaps? Oh, the irony ...

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Coherent enough to evoke a reply perhaps? Oh, the irony ...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870520255#post1870520255


I just quit some bad habits and have a lot of extra energy. This has been a fine way to burn some of it.


I love telling people their failings. And you, my little Sophist-to-be, are a superb target.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Now, where exactly did you bring up decimals? You see, this makes you wrong ... according to Scribble that is. ;) So, I think you need to decide which system you want to work with, and stop trying to fool us with all this absolute nonsense. Why? Because the numbers 3, 4 and 5 have absolutely nothing to do with the binary system.

By the way, I'm just pulling your leg here, if you can get it to work with either system that's fine by me. ;)

Of course you can get it to work by either system.

"This is a cat"
"This is a domesticated adult feline."

I'm saying the same thing.

12 + 8 = 20 (decimal notation)
1100 + 100 = 10100 (binary notation)
C + 8 = 14 (hexadecimal notation)
C + 8 = 13 (base 17 notation)

All of those say the same thing.

I wasted time showing that Pythagorus applies no matter your number system and I'm likely wasting time here too. But I'm bored.

Switching from binary to decimal to hexadecimal is all a matter of shifting brain gears. It doesn't affect the formulas you're working with.

[UserGoogol]

Pythagoras wasn't the first to think of the Pythagorean Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem), he just had it named after him for some reason.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but would that be working in binary or decimal? Or, is it possible that someone might get the wrong idea in another language? How right would it be then?

wow...all this time spent in numerology and you still don't know what the hell a number base is.

11^2+100^2=101^2

1001+10000=11001

Gone for a while, thought iacchus might get some sort of a clue, but I guess not

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

wow...all this time spent in numerology and you still don't know what the hell a number base is.

11^2+100^2=101^2

1001+10000=11001

Gone for a while, thought iacchus might get some sort of a clue, but I guess not It only goes to show that people see what they want to see. You didn't by any chance read any other posts besides this one did you?

[RabbiSatan]

Is it just me - or has there been an influx of incredibly stupid people suddenly?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Is it just me - or has there been an influx of incredibly stupid people suddenly? What, are you referring to the latest innuendo? ... Exactly!

[SGT]

Actually, Pythagoras stated the theorem using the areas of the squares constructed over the three sides of a right triangle, and proved it using only geometric constructions, so it must work in any number system.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by SGT
Actually, Pythagoras stated the theorem using the areas of the squares constructed over the three sides of a right triangle, and proved it using only geometric constructions, so it must work in any number system.

<---- Like what my cell is covering :)

[jimlintott]

Is it just me - or has there been an influx of incredibly stupid people suddenly?

Incredibly stupid?

You're being kind.

Don't despair I'm working on a new base 36 number system that should be able to quantify it. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimlintott

Incredibly stupid?

You're being kind.

Don't despair I'm working on a new base 36 number system that should be able to quantify it. ;) Stupid compared to what? Non-existence? Which, I'm afraid is all we have to look forward to when we die, right? From non-existence we came, to no-existence we go, and somehow in-between we're able to discern between stupidity and intelligence? So tell me, what difference does it make? And how do know the joke's not on you? ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Stupid compared to what? Non-existence? Which, I'm afraid is all we have to look forward to when we die, right? From non-existence we came, to no-existence we go, and somehow in-between we're able to discern between stupidity and intelligence? So tell me, what difference does it make? And how do know the joke's not on you?

Oh my god! You've concinved me, Iacchus!! How could I not see your truth!!

Oh wait... just kidding.

I used to think things like this were clever when I was in high school. I'm not a child anymore.

We all know who we're laughing at here, Iacchus. We know who is the joke.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Oh my god! You've concinved me, Iacchus!! How could I not see your truth!!

Oh wait... just kidding.

I used to think things like this were clever when I was in high school. I'm not a child anymore.

We all know who we're laughing at here, Iacchus. We know who is the joke. Do you believe in right and wrong? Or, is meaning pretty much a matter of what we wish to ascribe to it?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe in right and wrong? Or, is meaning pretty much a matter of what we wish to ascribe to it?

I want to know how this relates to number systems and Pythagoras, myself.

Is that base 36 system ready yet?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

I want to know how this relates to number systems and Pythagoras, myself.

Is that base 36 system ready yet? Yes, but how do we in fact know anything?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but how do we in fact know anything?

Price of eggs in Argentina - $.04
Relation of Iacchus's answer to my question - (x/0)ⁿ⁺¹

[hgc]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but how do we in fact know anything? Oh, I see. You've been shown to not know what you're talking about, all of a sudden no one really knows anything. How convenient.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

Price of eggs in Argentina - $.04
Relation of Iacchus's answer to my question - (x/0)ⁿ⁺¹ Did you bother to read the original post? Doesn't it in fact have more to do with how we know what we know as opposed to Pythagoras himself?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Did you bother to read the original post? Doesn't it in fact have more to do with how we know what we know as opposed to Pythagoras himself?

No.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

No. So, how do you know what you know? Is it because you got a degree that says so?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, how do you know what you know? Is it because you got a degree that says so?

What I said was your post was not related to the OP.


I don't have a degree, BTW.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, how do you know what you know? Is it because you got a degree that says so?

I allow myself to be baited why?

We know what we know through education, observation, experimentation, the application of logical and critical thinking, and I'm sure we can add to that list.

Scribble already stated the the Pythagorean Theorem has been proven for all intents and purposes.

Now unless you can disprove it, could you stop your wanna-sophist, pseudo-esoteric b.s. in this thread?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

I allow myself to be baited why?

We know what we know through education, observation, experimentation, the application of logical and critical thinking, and I'm sure we can add to that list.

Scribble already stated the the Pythagorean Theorem has been proven for all intents and purposes.

Now unless you can disprove it, could you stop your wanna-sophist, pseudo-esoteric b.s. in this thread? If you want me to stop, all you gotta do is pretend like I was never here. ;)

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you want me to stop, all you gotta do is pretend like I was never here. ;)

Thus proving your point about relativness and meaning and perception and so on?

NEVAH!

You really are here just to screw with us, aren't you?:D

[SGT]

It seems that dolphins have a ratio (brain mass)/ (body mass) similar to humans. I would say that dolphins are smarter than some posters in this forum.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

Thus proving your point about relativness and meaning and perception and so on?

NEVAH!

You really are here just to screw with us, aren't you?:D However, there must be a backdrop beyond what we perceive, right? Otherwise the whole thing is just an illusion.